Are you contradicting my extreme example, or all "non-ASCII" characters? I also cannot write something as ordinary as "ç", no more than I can write Chinese char

Are you contradicting my extreme example, or all "non-ASCII" characters? I also cannot write something as ordinary as "ç", no more than I can write Chinese character for water. "ç" is a letter. As is "å". The latter is in no way whatsoever related to "a". Certainly there are people with a "ò" in their name, who will tell you that if you spell it "o" then "that's not my name". Your reference to RFC8264 also makes another good point. 38 pages of best practices, plus thousands of pages pulled in from references. Not exactly a case for saying it's feasible for all software to handle this correctly. I did a quick scan of RFC8264, and could not tell if "ç", "å", or "习" are "letters". Yes, that's due to not really trying, since "all I have to do" is read thousands of pages on unicode definitions. What exactly are you trying to say is already established, under the assumption that Unicode already defines identifiers? 7-bit ASCII letters & numbers mostly, or a broader definition of letters? In any case I don't think people are making "outdated" comments, but that they are disagreeing, possibly unicode specs be damned. E.g. see the article itself, where people say that anything that isn't colon or NUL byte should be allowed. > This is enough to write any user name, without allowing "smiley snowman Chinese sign for water" But not to have the username "习近平", right? Or am I misinterpreting by getting lost in references to references in unicode specs?